MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283804482 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arac063

Studying predator foraging mode and hunting success at the individual level with an online videogame

2022· article· en· W4283804482 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Fraser Franco, Francesca Santostefano, Clint D. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingPredationPredatorEcologyBiologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predator–prey interactions are important drivers of community and ecosystem dynamics. With an online multiplayer videogame, we propose a novel system to explore within population variation in predator hunting mode, and how predator–prey behavioral interactions affect predator hunting success. We empirically examined how four predator foraging behaviors covary at three hierarchical levels (among environments, among individuals, and within individuals) to assess the structure of predator hunting mode. We also investigated how prey activity affects the foraging behavior and hunting success of predators. Our study supports key findings on predator foraging mode and predator-prey interactions from behavioral ecology. We found that individual predators displayed a diversity of hunting tactics that were conditioned by prey behavior. With prey movement, individual predators specialized either as cursorial or ambush hunters along a continuum of their hunting traits, but also shifted their strategy between encounters. Both types of hunters were generally better against slower moving prey, and they achieved similar prey captures over the sampling period. This suggests that virtual worlds supporting multiplayer online videogames can serve as legitimate systems to advance our knowledge on predator–prey interactions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207